Impossible Expectations: Detractors often set unattainable standards for scientific evidence, demanding absolute certainty or perfection. They may dismiss findings that cannot provide 100% guarantees as unproven or meaningless. This final FLICC tactic exploits the public’s misunderstanding of how science works, where uncertainty and ongoing refinement are natural parts of the scientific process. By imposing impossible expectations, detractors create the illusion that the science is incomplete or unreliable.

In Tucker Carlson’s interview with Bill Nye, he repeatedly employs this tactic. Carlson introduces the impossible expectation at 2:20 and reiterates this demand at 2:48, asking for an exact degree, rate, or percentage, and again at 3:28, pressing Nye for even greater precision, characterizing these expectations as “very basic questions.” At 4:39, Carlson escalates further, framing his demand as a “simple question” Nye should easily be able to answer.

At 5:33, Carlson constructs a straw man by claiming Nye is saying the scientific community knows precisely what is happening and anybody questioning it should be imprisoned or silenced. At 6:19, Carlson characterizes his impossible expectations as honest questions, dismissing Nye’s position because he failed to meet them.

Toward the end of the interview at 7:55, Carlson even seems to affirm his use of the tactic, stating, “You don’t actually know because it’s unknowable.” Like Inhofe, Carlson concludes at 8:45 that the jury is still out on the science surrounding climate change and accusing Nye of pretending otherwise.

FLICC tactics are effective because they exploit the complexity of science, operating on the assumption that most people lack the expertise to critically evaluate competing claims. By creating doubt and confusion, these tactics provide a rationale for skepticism, inaction, or outright rejection of scientific findings.

In the 1950s, the tobacco industry famously used these same five tactics to fabricate a sense of scientific controversy around the connection between smoking and lung cancer that later proved to be both undeniable and deadly.^[1] Their strategy successfully delayed regulatory measures for decades, casting unwarranted uncertainty on anti-smoking campaigns and public health efforts.

We can see the same playbook still in use around climate change—manufacturing controversy by amplifying the views of skeptics, mischaracterizing the consensus opinion, and framing it within a global conspiracy. These efforts reveal the real goal of science denial: not to disprove the overwhelming consensus, but to leave the public with just enough doubt to justify doing nothing at all.